This sounds like an improvement.
How many times does someone have to speed in the winter, and crash their car, before they learn? Bet they'd learn damn fast if they were "forced" to ride along with every fetal accident ever recorded, forced to feel the pain of death over and over.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
... we now very rarely memorize long epic poems. That was often their only way to preserve a story for generations, so they developed the memory to support it. Now, we can't even remember where we put our keys, and we ask Google about anything else. I'm afraid our brain outsourcing (or outboarding, as you said) may be irreversible short of a technological disaster.
Chip, I've never really thought of it until you said that. Perhaps our brains are now more geared into processing and reasoning than memorizing. We have so much data that requires processing every hour, as well as the reasoning and wisdom to determine how to use the results of that processing...
It would be interesting to somehow artificially increase (help) the brain's memory while keeping the reasoning power. A book comes to mind that has often intrigued me: Gridlinked, by Neal Asher. He introduces a device that you "install" behind your ear that gives you a mental interface to the local Runcible (Super Dooper computer). You can query the computer by mere thoughts. For example, the main character -- an investigator -- walks down the street and sees a face that looks familiar, so he searches the polices records for the face through the mental interface thingy, and by the time he passes the person he knows all about this person's criminal history and that he is currently wanted.
Both cool and scary...
It would be interesting to somehow artificially increase (help) the brain's memory while keeping the reasoning power. A book comes to mind that has often intrigued me: Gridlinked, by Neal Asher. He introduces a device that you "install" behind your ear that gives you a mental interface to the local Runcible (Super Dooper computer). You can query the computer by mere thoughts. For example, the main character -- an investigator -- walks down the street and sees a face that looks familiar, so he searches the polices records for the face through the mental interface thingy, and by the time he passes the person he knows all about this person's criminal history and that he is currently wanted.
Both cool and scary...
At least tell us you've re-imaged your OS, and keep up to date with security patches!
{;-)
Skynet wants you! Resistance is futile...
you will be assimilated...we are the Borg,
err, I mean, Apple, no, Microsoft, eh, IBM...
{;-)
Skynet wants you! Resistance is futile...
you will be assimilated...we are the Borg,
err, I mean, Apple, no, Microsoft, eh, IBM...
Take two patches and call me in the morning.
At which point "don't be evil" can be revised to "there is no evil"
There is only Google.
At which time the name will be dropped, there being no need to distinguish it from other, there being no other.
At which time the name will be dropped, there being no need to distinguish it from other, there being no other.
Google is great, Google is sage
Let us thank them for this page
By their site we must be fed
Give us this day our daily web
AMEN
Let us thank them for this page
By their site we must be fed
Give us this day our daily web
AMEN
Although many times we are "hunting" for the answer, and the object of a hunt is generally referred to as "prey".
Which brings to mind an enjoyable book series, John Sandford's "Prey" books...
but that's a different genre.
Which brings to mind an enjoyable book series, John Sandford's "Prey" books...
but that's a different genre.
Consider the way of the ant ( to borrow from one of your recent posts, Santee! ), they work as a group, signaling by way of chemicals, touch, sight to a point, each individual ant takes on a task, and the end results can be astounding...mounds, tunnels, even in somewhat solid materials.
Google is in a way mimicking the ways of the lowly ant in regards to its distributed data centers. By themselves, pretty good, but when linked via electrical signals, the goals can be amazing...as well as frightening. Perhaps our first non-human intelligent creation will be a multitude of distributed datacenters made up of countless little servers, each performing a task, to the betterment of the collective "hive"?
Google is in a way mimicking the ways of the lowly ant in regards to its distributed data centers. By themselves, pretty good, but when linked via electrical signals, the goals can be amazing...as well as frightening. Perhaps our first non-human intelligent creation will be a multitude of distributed datacenters made up of countless little servers, each performing a task, to the betterment of the collective "hive"?
Isn't this what we do with the web all the time? But we need to exercise judgement on what we retrieve, we need to choose. If this was done direct to the brain, we'd need to build in a monitoring function to assess the validity of what we retrieve.
And just imagine the potential for hacking, spying and directing the brains!
And just imagine the potential for hacking, spying and directing the brains!
In the last few years, the field of prosthetic devices has undergone tremendous strides in replacing lost limbs, notably hands and legs. I've read reports of a prosthetic hand that can be linked to the patient's nerves and actually controlled to the point of gripping a styrofoam coffee cup. The prosthetic consists of micro-machines, chips and circuits, and as electronics continue to get smaller the levels of control improve.
There has been talk of using nanobots to correct vascular blockage ( "blocked arteries" ), aid in cancer treatment, dissolve blood clots in deep vein thrombosis...not talk of "if" but "when" the electronics become small enough.
Interesting, to say the least!
There has been talk of using nanobots to correct vascular blockage ( "blocked arteries" ), aid in cancer treatment, dissolve blood clots in deep vein thrombosis...not talk of "if" but "when" the electronics become small enough.
Interesting, to say the least!
Hehe, my wife claims I already suffer from those on occassion! On COLD nights, I jokingly comment "Wow, this is a 2 blonde night!" I receive the "non-sequeter" glare, and "I don't think so" response!
Glad you like it!
I actually ripped it off from user anintruder, but I have a feeling that anintruder doesn't need google as a go-between.
I actually ripped it off from user anintruder, but I have a feeling that anintruder doesn't need google as a go-between.
Seems obvious to me that we will get to a point where we are adding our own upgrades.
pacemakers, hearing aids, even glasses and contact lenses. The upgrades will become more plentiful, and more effective.
The question is not correctly stated, in the sense that it's an either/or.
There might be a different option, in the sense that human beings might actually supplement their own intelligence with artificial means. For example, in the same way that we have today artificial limbs and pacemakers, and other inserts, it might well be that we develop additional implants to increase our own intelligence. If so, then the potential human intelligence might be inlimited.
There might be a different option, in the sense that human beings might actually supplement their own intelligence with artificial means. For example, in the same way that we have today artificial limbs and pacemakers, and other inserts, it might well be that we develop additional implants to increase our own intelligence. If so, then the potential human intelligence might be inlimited.
The Moore's Law does not apply to humans unfortunately. Current observation of the education systems of the developed world seems to show that those coming out of education are less capable than their predecessors. We can therefore expect a slow down of development which will postpone the singularity indefinitely.
First of all, the assertion that the Human brain has not evolved in 50,000 years is most probably nonsense. The body has; only a few hundred years ago we were smaller than we are now. Medieval armour would not fit a modern man. To accept that the body has evolved (evolution, contrary to common belief does NOT take an age - it happens quite quickly. It HAS to because envirnomental changes that drive evolutiuon can (and do) happen quickly) but not the brain is a perverse sort of arrogance.
In order to determine whether its possible to create an intelligent machine, one must first of all know what 'intelligence' is. Intelligence cannot exist without imagination, and imagination cannot exist without conciousness. Many scientists have debated conciousness and many experiments on brain-damaged people have thrown up some interesting ideas. One such is that both a sense of 'self' and 'conciousness' are imaginary.
The phenomena of 'conciousness' may be an accidental by-product of the close proximity in the brain of say, optical and audio circuitry. The fact that events we see and events we hear happen within us (in our heads) and are connected in the real world also, gives us a fuller experience of them and 'awareness' is taking place in between the circuitry, as a by-product (this is why the so-called 'seat of conciousness' in the brain cannot be found). But no-one yet knows for sure.
Likewise, the illusionary concept of 'self' is drummed into us from birth (YOU have made a mess. YOU are making a noise. Mummy loves YOU) and, without this, no real 'self' occurs - this is bourne out with the evidence of wild-reared children (yes it does happen) who have no such sense of 'self'.
We can imagine the world around us in terms of past, present and future; a necessary talent for hunting, foraging, planting etc.
With imagination, with an 'awareness' of our environment, with a diet that allows us to spend time cogitating instead of constantly needing to forage, with problems that need solutions, 'intelligence' evolves. We all have an innate understanding of higher mathematics for example - we can correctly kick or throw a ball at a target without conciously calculating speed, trajectory etc. Dogs can catch balls - so they do too.... in fact any hunting animal can do this.
To confer 'intelligence' on a machine (and don't forget, in order to make a machine as complicated as a brain, we may have to resort to biological 'chips' rather than silicon/germanium ones), it first needs an awareness of itself. It needs imagination. Awareness for a machine may not need to be different to ours. A knowledge of what events make what noise, and why, coupled with the ability to see these happening and a recognition of the entity's position in space/time relative to the event may well be enough. Imagination: machines already have this in the form of Chess computers that calculate sequences of moves before electing to play the best one. You only have to marry imagination with awareness and you have a fledgling intelligence that would be limited only by the physical circuitry - which, in the case of a biological entity, can evolve.
The main question would then be 'are we in danger of being disposed of as inefficient, outdated, superceded?'. Well, as with any offspring, that will depend entirely on its parents.
Interestingly, experiments show that we might not actually have free will - that ALL our actions are instinctive, with the illusion of having made a decision provided by this concept of 'self' and 'awareness'. If this is the case, then the intelligent robot is already here - and has been here for at least 2 million years.....
In order to determine whether its possible to create an intelligent machine, one must first of all know what 'intelligence' is. Intelligence cannot exist without imagination, and imagination cannot exist without conciousness. Many scientists have debated conciousness and many experiments on brain-damaged people have thrown up some interesting ideas. One such is that both a sense of 'self' and 'conciousness' are imaginary.
The phenomena of 'conciousness' may be an accidental by-product of the close proximity in the brain of say, optical and audio circuitry. The fact that events we see and events we hear happen within us (in our heads) and are connected in the real world also, gives us a fuller experience of them and 'awareness' is taking place in between the circuitry, as a by-product (this is why the so-called 'seat of conciousness' in the brain cannot be found). But no-one yet knows for sure.
Likewise, the illusionary concept of 'self' is drummed into us from birth (YOU have made a mess. YOU are making a noise. Mummy loves YOU) and, without this, no real 'self' occurs - this is bourne out with the evidence of wild-reared children (yes it does happen) who have no such sense of 'self'.
We can imagine the world around us in terms of past, present and future; a necessary talent for hunting, foraging, planting etc.
With imagination, with an 'awareness' of our environment, with a diet that allows us to spend time cogitating instead of constantly needing to forage, with problems that need solutions, 'intelligence' evolves. We all have an innate understanding of higher mathematics for example - we can correctly kick or throw a ball at a target without conciously calculating speed, trajectory etc. Dogs can catch balls - so they do too.... in fact any hunting animal can do this.
To confer 'intelligence' on a machine (and don't forget, in order to make a machine as complicated as a brain, we may have to resort to biological 'chips' rather than silicon/germanium ones), it first needs an awareness of itself. It needs imagination. Awareness for a machine may not need to be different to ours. A knowledge of what events make what noise, and why, coupled with the ability to see these happening and a recognition of the entity's position in space/time relative to the event may well be enough. Imagination: machines already have this in the form of Chess computers that calculate sequences of moves before electing to play the best one. You only have to marry imagination with awareness and you have a fledgling intelligence that would be limited only by the physical circuitry - which, in the case of a biological entity, can evolve.
The main question would then be 'are we in danger of being disposed of as inefficient, outdated, superceded?'. Well, as with any offspring, that will depend entirely on its parents.
Interestingly, experiments show that we might not actually have free will - that ALL our actions are instinctive, with the illusion of having made a decision provided by this concept of 'self' and 'awareness'. If this is the case, then the intelligent robot is already here - and has been here for at least 2 million years.....
The increase in stature has more to do with nutrition than evolution. Chiefly intake of animal protein.
"Much" is a relative term. No, not any gross physicial changes in the brain, but several significant changes in operation that effect social organizations.
We've undergone a lot of genetic mutations in the past 50K years, and several of them right before the point we began organizing into cities, states, and nations. While that is merely a correlation at this point, there is suffient basis to theorize that it was a genetic mutation expressed in our mental capabilties that allowed us to move past the family/clan level of social organization without resorting to instantly killing each other.
The scenario of AI machines taking over or humanity is actually growing less likely. Our advances in understanding and manipulating biology make it more likely that we will either begin redesigning and modifying ourselves; either at the cytoplasmic/genetic level, or at the gross physical level; or we'll make a mistake (either accidental or deliberate) that wipes us out, or worse, wipes out all other life on the planet.
We've undergone a lot of genetic mutations in the past 50K years, and several of them right before the point we began organizing into cities, states, and nations. While that is merely a correlation at this point, there is suffient basis to theorize that it was a genetic mutation expressed in our mental capabilties that allowed us to move past the family/clan level of social organization without resorting to instantly killing each other.
The scenario of AI machines taking over or humanity is actually growing less likely. Our advances in understanding and manipulating biology make it more likely that we will either begin redesigning and modifying ourselves; either at the cytoplasmic/genetic level, or at the gross physical level; or we'll make a mistake (either accidental or deliberate) that wipes us out, or worse, wipes out all other life on the planet.
not going to happen... mankind is in the decline a hundred years from now average joe is not going to be able to pour beer out of a boot even if the instructions are written on the heel. the ten percent that advances is going to be smothered by the ninety in decline
You as tired of this shilt as I am tired? Like, in another thread, about somebody establishing relevance for us all.
Who poured the beer in the boot? Why? What brand of boot? Style, cowboy boot, climbing boot? I would assert that if someone were of the intelligence to pour beer in the boot to begin with, somebody closeby will dare them to drink it...tinea pedis spores and all. Therewith, the pretense that someone would need to look for instructions on the heel would be negated. Conclusion...no relevance between beer in the boot and the Singularity can be inferred, non sequeter.
The wrong liquid was used as the point of reference, and most of us know the liquid involved in that old saying. Which also cannot be linked to the Singularity, as it does not bear any relevance to machines, but may hold some relationship with common sense of some percentage of the human population. The same ones that would waste good beer by pouring it in a boot to begin with.
The wrong liquid was used as the point of reference, and most of us know the liquid involved in that old saying. Which also cannot be linked to the Singularity, as it does not bear any relevance to machines, but may hold some relationship with common sense of some percentage of the human population. The same ones that would waste good beer by pouring it in a boot to begin with.
But I'm still having trouble with the difference between irrelevant and irreverant. 
But in content, the irreverant is seldom irrelevant. We need all the help we can get in Ordo Iocularii 
But lately I'm finding that both relevance and reverence are overrated.
The slightest nod to the topic at hand coupled with the appearance of reverance; it's the perfect varnish for the mother payload.
Or is it a veneer... Maybe it's a varnished veneer. Or a tarnished teniers.
Never mind, so long as the suckers get caught off guard, red-handed, pants down and sins all hanging out!
Or is it a veneer... Maybe it's a varnished veneer. Or a tarnished teniers.
Never mind, so long as the suckers get caught off guard, red-handed, pants down and sins all hanging out!
do that all by themselves, with no help from us.
All we need do is point and laugh.
All we need do is point and laugh.
The laws of physics dictate that Moore?s law can not continue indefinitely - either the calculating elements (transistors) will reach a size below which they will not be able to function as switches, or the speed of signal transfer in them will reach a limit - optical computers will use light with its top speed of 300 kkm/s several orders of magnitude higher than what in use today. But even with that, if the computer has to be big enough to perform a task of certain complexity, the size will come n mismatch with the requested velocity and the device will slow down and eventually bog-down. The same goes on with coding - when the absolutely best program is created (irrelevant if by man or machine) there will be nothing better. That will not happen any time soon, but we can surmise that at a certain point the machine might become better than man today.
There is nothing to worry: by that time we will be able to artificially induce at will the evolution of humankind into a new species (let us call it Homo superior) with bigger brains giving severalfold higher intelligence, and bigger bodies to carry such a head. Of course the size of bodies and brains also has a limit of growth that is not endless - laws of physics apply to biology as well. Will the machines at the end of their evolution be more intelligent than people at the end of their can not be estimated. Even that is irrelevant: if they will, humankind will integrate itself with the machines. controlling the from inside, before they could take over - becoming one, a new hybrid cyborg species that would look everything but the Borg collective from ST.
There is nothing to worry: by that time we will be able to artificially induce at will the evolution of humankind into a new species (let us call it Homo superior) with bigger brains giving severalfold higher intelligence, and bigger bodies to carry such a head. Of course the size of bodies and brains also has a limit of growth that is not endless - laws of physics apply to biology as well. Will the machines at the end of their evolution be more intelligent than people at the end of their can not be estimated. Even that is irrelevant: if they will, humankind will integrate itself with the machines. controlling the from inside, before they could take over - becoming one, a new hybrid cyborg species that would look everything but the Borg collective from ST.
the planck length should at the very least be the final cut-off for circuitry density... on the other hand, we break into viable quantum computing way before that border, and then we have a whole new ballpark again.
I didn't vote because I don't consider any of the 3 options valid. Moore's Law cannot continue indefinitely as we are already approaching atomic levels of size of individual components. However, just because we can't make components any smaller doesn't mean we'll hit a technological wall. Technology will continue to advance by more ingenious devices, not more of the same only smaller, the latter being an extremely limited view of the future. No mention has been made of organic electronic devices which grow and reproduce themselves. Just as 16th century scientists couldn't predict the future because they had no concept of electricity, today's scientists cannot predict the future because we have no idea what major breakthroughs may occur. To think we know it all today is just stupid.
this means, if we have 1000grams brain, we have just used 1 gram,creating nuclear powers .
when will we use full 100 % ?
if you believe in bible= it will be very near. after armagedon= the cleansing of this world by almighty God= very near . during this time,man could fly faster than light speeds= transform himself to light particles, explore the 14billion light year (its radius only) universe.
if you believe in science, it could be the robots to take over , and would take MATRIX wars .
which one you want ?
when will we use full 100 % ?
if you believe in bible= it will be very near. after armagedon= the cleansing of this world by almighty God= very near . during this time,man could fly faster than light speeds= transform himself to light particles, explore the 14billion light year (its radius only) universe.
if you believe in science, it could be the robots to take over , and would take MATRIX wars .
which one you want ?
It may very well be the first and we are not going to be here much longer as the Atmosphere changes dramatically. 
Col
Col
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
